Examining the claims of Google Scholar as a serious information source

E-LIS Repository (University of Naples Federico II)Published 1 January 2006Open access

Bruce White

Citations27

TL;DR

This article critically examines Google Scholar through a number of practical examples concluding that in terms of its coverage and functionality it outperforms traditional databases in locating a major portion of the available information.

Abstract

Since its introduction in mid 2004 the Google Scholar search engine has been the subject of considerable interest within the library community and has been the subject of both excitement and criticism. While applauding its ambitious scope various writers have pointed out its shortcomings through unfavourable comparisons with the traditional scholarly databases. This article summarises the debate and then critically examines Google Scholar through a number of practical examples concluding that in terms of its coverage and functionality it outperforms traditional databases in locating a major portion of the available information.

Keywords

Social SciencesComputer Science

The American NaturalistOn Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment

4,435 Citations1966Robert H. MacArthur, Eric R. Pianka

A graphical method is discussed which allows a specification of the optimal diet of a predator in terms of the net amount of energy gained from a capture of prey as compared to the energy expended in searching for the prey.

Online Information ReviewGoogle Scholar: the pros and the cons

387 Citations2005Péter Jacsó

There are massive content omissions presently but it feels that Google Scholar will become an excellent free tool for scholarly information discovery and retrieval with future changes in its structure.

Aslib ProceedingsIs Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources

213 Citations2005Jan Brophy, David Bawden

A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system.

Online Information ReviewDeflated, inflated and phantom citation counts

155 Citations2006Péter Jacsó

The combination of the inflated citation count values dispensed by Google Scholar with the ignorance and shallowness of some GS enthusiasts can be a real mix for real scholars.

Library Hi Tech NewsGaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences

62 Citations2005Susan Gardner, Susanna Eng

Google Scholar’s lack of quality control and inability to let the user manipulate data make it less effective than the fee‐based databases at finding scholarly material in the social sciences.

Library Research Models: A Guide to Classification, Cataloging, and Computers

55 Citations1993Thomas Mann

Online Information ReviewDubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs

45 Citations2006Péter Jacsó

This paper discusses dubious hit counts in search results and uses not only traditional databases and search engines but also unique citation databases to gain informative hit figures.

Reference Services ReviewGoogle Scholar™ and libraries: point/counterpoint

25 Citations2005Martin Kesselman, Sarah Barbara Watstein

Google Scholar™'s impact on reference and information literacy is considered, as are the challenges it poses for the library's web site.

Performance Measurement and MetricsDoes the student's love of the search engine mean that high quality online academic resources are being missed?

20 Citations2005Margaret Markland

Analysis of results suggests that the exclusive use of search engines will lead to users missing the high quality resources provided by the RDN hubs, and that if users use subject gateways in the same way that they use search engines they are likely to miss much that the hubs' sophisticated structures and search options have to offer.

Online Information ReviewGiving way to Google

19 Citations2006G.E. Gorman

There is no contest in the head‐to‐head battle for information services supremacy and that Google Scholar, with its information “now” and “fast” beats others hands down, says this paper.